Contents

The only power Congress has, in effectively actualizing the will of the people to pull out of Iraq by the end of the year, is through the withholding of the funds that make the war possible and the prohibition of funding for existing or prospective deployments.

Specifically, we ask Representative David Price to:
Vote against the funding of the upcoming War on Terror Supplemental Appropriations bill and all other appropriations bills unless they include a provision to the effect of:

None of the Funds herein appropriated under this act may be expended to support directly or indirectly combat activities in or over Iraq by United States forces, and after December 31, 2007, no other funds heretofore appropriated under any other act may be expended for such purposes.

The 4th District precinct Democratic Parties will be having their annual precinct meetings this week. Two resolutions are explicit in requesting Representative Davis Price to act in the only way that a congressman can if s/he is serious about preventing and stopping war; using his/her vote against funding of these actions. The Iraq resolution even takes into account the timing necessary for this request to be effective. Monday, March 5, in time for the House Appropriations Committee hearing on the supplemental spending bill. Representative David Price is a ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee.

If most precincts in the 4th District pass these two resolutions the county parties of these precincts (and the 4th District) will have a mandate from (their own and) Representative David Price’s constituency to assure that he vote against continuation of the war (i.e. continued funding of the war) in time for the March Supplemental Appropriations vote.

Timeline of Representative Price relative to his stand on voting (and using his clout) against further funding of the war.

Monday Feb 5, 2007 US President George W. Bush submitted his budget for the next fiscal year to Congress, including requests of 235 billion dollars for both the current year and 2008 (93.4 billion dollars supplemental appropriations for 2007 and 141.7 billion dollars emergency appropriations for 2008 fiscal year starting October 1) to largely fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The war in 2007 is costing 10 billion dollars a month. There is currently money until April.

The authority given to the President by Congress to wage war in Iraq expires on December 31, 2007

Representative David Price introduces his resolution. No Commitment to vote, or use clout to have other members join in voting, against further funding for the war. Rep. Price was asked explicitly on two occasions whether he could commit to voting against further funding of the war.

Rep. Price response: Voting against further funding of the war would "Not be supportive of the troops". He also mentioned it somehow being a 'Constitutional issue'?

January 27 March on Washington.

Representative David Price was invited to welcome arriving buses.

Rep. Price response: Not present.

January 29 Lobbying day in D.C.

Response: Price not present, met with Price aid. "Price will support funding because of troops." (Duck and Cover approach http://www.counterpunch.org/leys03272006.html) When it was pointed out that: 'The Congressional Research Services states that it takes anywhere from 1 to 3 years from the time funds are appropriated to the time when equipment and weapons are available in the field. ' The aide expressed never having heard of this, but was interested.

In its initial request for supplemental funding, the Department of Defense requested that "its procurement funds be available for three years to take into account the one to three years that it takes to contract, order, produce and receive military parts and equipment." [Congressional Research Service, footnote #12, page CRS-8]. Given this lag time, it cannot be plausibly argued that these funds must be allocated at this point in time in order to ensure that U.S. troops in the field have the weapons needed to fight the Iraq war in present real time. The only purpose this additional funding serves is to ensure that weapons are available to fight the war for years into the future.

It is the responsibility of the American people to hold their government accountable for the human deaths that are a consequence of the war in Iraq. There have been 3,000 plus American soldier deaths in Iraq. It is claimed that further funding is required so that these troops have the equipment necessary to shield and ‘defend’ themselves. What is not included in this argument is the fact that these soldiers are members of an aggressor occupation force fighting a war that is premised on lies and is internationally illegal. Furthermore, for every American soldier killed there are 200 Iraqis killed by the occupation force. To speak of the need for funds for American soldiers without speaking of the need to withhold funds for the lives of Iraqi people amounts to a racism where the human lives of American soldiers are valued 200 times more than the life of an Iraqi. Finally, if funds are discontinued for the war, bringing troops back from Iraq will place them out of harms way, anyway, and in effect render the need of equipment for soldiers to shield and defend themselves unnecessary.

Congress controls the purse and is constitutional responsible for holding the Executive branch in check.Edit

Constitutionally, while the president is commander-in-chief, Congress retains the power to decide whether the activities in which the president is engaged are deserving of the resources from the American people that he requests to conduct those policies.

For the Price-Miller Resolution to be effective Congress has to prohibit funding for existing or prospective deployments in Iraq.Edit

As established by Campbell vs. Clinton a "clear impasse between the executive and legislative branches," ‘has to occur before a President can be challenged, through an appeal to the judicial branch, for violating the 1973 War Powers Act. In other words, pre-requisite to passing an effective and binding war resolution, Congress has to have established a clear and consistent message against the president’s position. Congress cannot send mixed messages (i.e. voting to fund the war while at the same time passing resolutions against the war).

While there are several recently-filed pieces of legislation that have provisions for cutting the funding for the war in Iraq and bringing our troops home, these measures if passed would be vetoed by President Bush, and there is no veto-proof margin. If the Supplemental Appropriations bill, on the other hand, is not passed by EITHER the House or the Senate, it will never land on the President's desk and can not be subject to a veto. If in the next several weeks Congress can be convinced to vote against further funding for the war in Iraq, this war can be brought to an end.

Requesting the President of the United States and directing the Secretary of State to provide to the House of Representatives certain documents in their possession relating to the White House Iraq Group